lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 8 Mar 2005 07:42:37 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
* Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:

> > Yes.  In kernel "damage control" is an optional extra not a necessity 
> > with this solution.  Not so sure about with the RT LSB solution though.
> 
> This has one advantage over RT LSM in that area, which is it places an
> upper bound on the priority (in control of the admin).  So it's
> possible to save some space for damage control in the top few prio
> slots.

it's not just purely for damage control - there have been requests of
being able to 'partition' the RT priorities space between applications. 
(It's an afterthought but nice nevertheless.)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:10    [from the cache]
©2003-2008